it seems that the majority of people grossly underestimate corporation's level of involvement in our every day lives: if i were to become a persona non grata to google, apple, HN, social media, etc., how would i talk to anyone? how could i do anything? isolation will cause more harm than incarceration, yet i am not recognized a right to trial. not that it would matter anyway, the decision would likely be made algorithmically, without any one human knowing why it's happened.
what i'm saying is: corporations have come to own the infrastructure of our modern society. the protections that freedom of speech gave were (and still are) valuable in the context in which they were made. they don't address the reality that communication is fundamentally different to how it was in the 19th century.
> if i were to become a persona non grata to google, apple, HN, social media, etc., how would i talk to anyone? how could i do anything?
I honestly don't understand this argument at all.
To answer your question, you could:
- Use one of the thousands of other available email hosts/search engines/cloud providers/etc besides Google or Apple
- Pick up the phone and talk to people to get things done
- Leave your house to talk to people and do things
- Find something enjoyable to do with all of the free time you've gained now that you're off of social media and HN
But more importantly, you're saying that without those companies you somehow can't live your life? In that case I just flat-out disagree. I believe that most people make social media out to be more important than it is, and this feels like the extreme of that style of argument.
> Use one of the thousands of other available email hosts
when was the last time you sent (or received) an e-mail outside of the context of work, or to interact with a company?
> Pick up the phone
apple and google make the phones! my network provider is also a private company, too, they have no requirement to provide me a phone service.
> Leave your house to talk to people and do things
people no longer go to their friends front doors without calling ahead/planning first. millennials (my generation) aren't great at spontaneity in this regard. gen Z are even worse.
> Find something enjoyable to do with all of the free time you've gained now that you're off of social media and HN
i already don't use most social media. i don't go on facebook, twitter, tik tok, etc. i watch youtube videos and go on hacker news, and even then i rarely interact.
but if apple cut me off of icloud, facebook from whatsapp, etc. my life would be difficult enough. it would only take a couple of other companies to make it a nightmare. how many stories have landed on the HN front page about how a sudden dismissal from google has really screwed up someones online (and often real) life? and these are just the ones we here about..
private social media isn't the problem (although it is a problem). i'm saying that so much of our lives are very tightly embedded with a handful of private companies, and them having control over that isn't a great way to be.
> when was the last time you sent (or received) an e-mail outside of the context of work, or to interact with a company?
This morning, a few hours ago.
> apple and google make the phones! my network provider is also a private company, too, they have no requirement to provide me a phone service.
No, there are plenty of other phone manufacturers besides Apple and Google. Just as there are plenty of phone service providers, both mobile and VoIP. If they are all blocking/refusing you service, that would be quite a story, and I might change my opinion, but I've never heard of that happening.
> millennials (my generation) aren't great at spontaneity in this regard. gen Z are even worse.
I'm a older/early millenial (Xennial to some people). I agree with you but I don't see how you'd ever be completely blocked from using a phone.
> private social media isn't the problem (although it is a problem). i'm saying that so much of our lives are very tightly embedded with a handful of private companies, and them having control over that isn't a great way to be.
I agree with you 100%. The way to regain control is not to use the government to force them to provide a platform to racists, it's to ensure that you disentangle yourself from their systems as much as you can. Make sure you have a plan for what to do if your Whatsapp or iCloud account is banned by an algorithm with no recourse.
Are irreversible algorithmic bans the best way for companies to operate? Clearly not, it sucks. And maybe there's room for legal solutions to mandate open appeals processes, etc. But the alternative of forcing companies to give everyone a platform is way worse, IMHO.
surely you must recognize that you are likely in the minority of e-mail users?
> Just as there are plenty of phone service providers
two or three, really. and many areas in the US are limited to one or two.
> If they are all blocking/refusing you service, that would be quite a story, and I might change my opinion, but I've never heard of that happening.
didn't trump's twitter platform get banned from all the common cloud providers? is it that much more ridiculous to think that they would be unable to colo with anyone?
to be clear, i'm personally happy that it doesn't exist, and this isn't the same thing. but just because i don't agree with it... i know it's not the same thing as what we're talking about, but i don't think you don't need to squint too hard to see the parallel and the precedent.
> but I don't see how you'd ever be completely blocked from using a phone
indeed, i'd still be able to use my nokia 3310, and predictive text my way around social life, but it would be an incomplete existence (these days).
in any case, you don't need to be blocked from using a phone. you need only be blocked from using the various platforms that people use today.
> surely you must recognize that you are likely in the minority of e-mail users?
No, I don't recognize that. Citation needed.
> didn't trump's twitter platform get banned from all the common cloud providers? is it that much more ridiculous to think that they would be unable to colo with anyone?
I don't know, but as to your last question, yes, that's ridiculous, as there are thousands of datacenters out there.
Besides, Trump's twitter platform is not a person. It's a business with many more resources than the the vast majority of individuals have. It's dangerous to start from the principle that this organization should have the same rights as a natural person.
> two or three, really. and many areas in the US are limited to one or two.
You're talking about mobile providers. I specifically mentioned mobile and VoIP and you cut that part out. I'm done here as you don't seem to be willing to have an honest discussion.
fair enough. finding data wasn't easy. the best i could get that is somewhat related was this article from 2015 on teenage communication habits, which states that around 6% of teens use e-mail to communicate daily with their friends[1] (making it the least used form of communication). and this is pre-tiktok, so i'd expect this number to have decreased.
> Besides, Trump's twitter platform is not a person.
indeed, but the people using probably were. not that that's important: constitutionally, corporations have the same protections as people, indeed the US legal fiction of corporate personhood is practically a meme now. from [2]:
> Since the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, upholding the rights of corporations to make unlimited political expenditures under the First Amendment [...]
so it appears the supreme court agrees that free-speech protections apply to corporations.
> yes, that's ridiculous, as there are thousands of datacenters out there.
well then, where is the site now?
> I specifically mentioned mobile and VoIP and you cut that part out.
apologies, i presumed you understood that the IP in VoIP indicates that an internet connection is required for the voice to go over, and that without a mobile service provider, that could be.. logistically challenging :)
> I'm done here as you don't seem to be willing to have an honest discussion.
But would this still extend to 'free reach'? ie. if I go on Twitter, and say horrible things, then everyone blocks me, is my free speech being impeded because Twitter allows these people to block me? What about the algorithm, if Instagram's stories feature tries to show new videos based on people's interests, can I sue them for not showing my videos to other people?
> is my free speech being impeded because Twitter allows these people to block me?
of course not. if you choose to block me, i am not prevented from communicating with others.
> What about the algorithm, if Instagram's stories feature tries to show new videos based on people's interests, can I sue them for not showing my videos to other people?
the algorithm is the problem: if you subscribe/follow, you should see all the content (this is how facebook used to be).
TikTok is only as big as it is because of its efficient and useful algorithm/'for you' page. It's a testament to the fact that even the small amount of friction introduced in signing up and managing a friends list is too much for most people.
it seems that the majority of people grossly underestimate corporation's level of involvement in our every day lives: if i were to become a persona non grata to google, apple, HN, social media, etc., how would i talk to anyone? how could i do anything? isolation will cause more harm than incarceration, yet i am not recognized a right to trial. not that it would matter anyway, the decision would likely be made algorithmically, without any one human knowing why it's happened.
what i'm saying is: corporations have come to own the infrastructure of our modern society. the protections that freedom of speech gave were (and still are) valuable in the context in which they were made. they don't address the reality that communication is fundamentally different to how it was in the 19th century.